« The Vice Presidential Debate | Main | Roosevelt Lied, People Died! »
October 7, 2004
Kerry's Grand Alliance
Senator Kerry tells us that he would assemble a grand alliance before he undertook any military action. During the debate with President Bush, he lectured us thus:
I think we need a president who has the credibility to bring the allies back to the table and to do what's necessary to make it so America isn't doing this alone.My first thought is that Kerry is living in the past, that he harbors romantic dreams of World War II, with "the allies" all linking arms to defeat the Nazis and Imperial Japanese. But that doesn't work because the world balance of power has changed significantly since then. Today, the United States is much more powerful relative to other nations than back then. This is true to such an extent that the French have (correctly for once) taken to callings us a "hyperpower"(although they use the term as an insult). I haven't the time to lay out the relative military balance then and now, but this is not necessary as most readers will understand my point.
Perhaps Kerry is thinking of the Cold War. Here there was a good, strong, alliance of western nations against the Soviet threat. Kerry evidently imagines that since it worked then, it will work again agaist the Islamofascist threat.
But he is mistaken, here, too.
First, we had a single, mostly monolithic, enemy during the Cold War. It was a "traditional" enemy in that it was a government that employed a traditional military. It was a large, visible, threat, right at our doorsteps. Having just gone through one totalitarian nightmare, the Europeans had no desire for another. Further, since the enemy was right "next door", there were none of the political complications that arise when one must transport troops to another part of the world.
More importantly, the nations that he is evidently counting on to join us had no interest in Saddam's overthrow, and had everything to gain by keeping him in power. New reports (and here) on the Oil for Food scandal show that Saddam was at least trying to purchase influence in Europe, especially in France. The French also knew that if there was a war they would never get the lucrative contracts that they hoped to get. And we now know that French companies were supplying Saddam with weaponry in the months just prior to our invasion.
Further, they have nothing to gain with a new, democratic Iraq. Saddam was reliable, and they knew they could do business with them. Democracies will change their policies as elected leaders come and go. They know that if, heaven forbid, the terrorists do win, they won't come after them, for it will be the US and UK in their crosshairs. The countries of "old Europe" will seek an accomocation that keeps them off the hit list.
Also, for a man who talks incessantly about his military experience, Kerry seems to understand little of military affairs. The simple fact is that few of the other countries that might (in Kerry's dream world) help us have militaries of any significant size.
For more information, check out this excellent post at Right Reason, a new blog I've added to the blogroll. Apollo Morgan writes about the relative strength of the United States military to that of our potential allies. Also see his post here about military spending.
Posted by Tom at October 7, 2004 1:45 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.theredhunter.com/mt/refer.cgi/184
